When you go to a college to speak, you are not agreeing for people to protest you. They may do so if they want and probably will, hopefully within the confines of the law (probably not), but that is their choice, not a guarantee as a condition of speaking.

No, but the protesters aren't the ones that actually stop you, assuming they stay within the law. You did agree to whatever the university's policies are, and they're the ones that can actually withdraw your speaking invitation or sanction you for violating a code of conduct.

When you go to a college to speak, you are not agreeing for people to protest you. They may do so if they want and probably will, hopefully within the confines of the law (probably not), but that is their choice, not a guarantee as a condition of speaking.

No, but the protesters aren't the ones that actually stop you, assuming they stay within the law. You did agree to whatever the university's policies are, and they're the ones that can actually withdraw your speaking invitation or sanction you for violating a code of conduct.

You need to rent to live, you don't need to take a specific job requiring NDAs to live.

You don't need to live in that specific apartment, either.

That's not an equal comparison if you think it through even a little bit. People generally choose where they live because it is the foundation of their life. People condider how close to work, school, family, etc their apartment will be. Can my disabled friend easily enter? Will my giant dogs fit? Is it affordable? Maybe you do need that specific apartment but you don't need that specific job.

Even if that weren't the case, having your freedom of speech violated in your place of living is simply something which most people will agree shouldn't even be allowed, because if you can't speak in your own home, where can you? Certainly not college. If you're a conservative, probably not at work.

^ I'm always curious as fo why that matters when it comes up. Generally it seems to be a way to dismiss someone.

That's not an equal comparison if you think it through even a little bit. People generally choose where they live because it is the foundation of their life. People condider how close to work, school, family, etc their apartment will be. Can my disabled friend easily enter? Will my giant dogs fit? Is it affordable? Maybe you do need that specific apartment but you don't need that specific job.

Even if that weren't the case, having your freedom of speech violated in your place of living is simply something which most people will agree shouldn't even be allowed, because if you can't speak in your own home, where can you? Certainly not college. If you're a conservative, probably not at work.

^ I'm always curious as fo why that matters when it comes up. Generally it seems to be a way to dismiss someone.

Your second sentence is telling. People will move across the country or even borders for the right job. How many will do the same for an apartment? You're going to have a hard time even getting an apartment without a job, let alone keeping it.

But we're getting away from the original point. I'm not arguing that any of these things actually are equivalent, I'm asking why they're not given that NDAs as a precondition for a government job are acceptable as a contractual agreement you are allowed to walk away from. Does that mean being asked to sign away any right is okay so long as you technically have right of refusal? If not, where is the line? What makes it special?

Anyone moving across borders has means with or without a job they're willing to do that for, and any job requiring it must call for a person with more than just a GED; such a person has options. Without money you can't get across a big city let alone countries, so such a person doesn't need to concern themselves with whether a specific apartment is affordable or if their animals can be accommodated, they'll just shop around until they're satisfied. Not everyone has these luxuries, someone would have to end up in the **** "no free speech" apartment just so their grandma can live comfortably. That's where the line is, where people are affected. If shopping at Walmart requires you to drop your free speech, if renting an apartment requires it, or acquiring an education does, you're living in 1984. To ask why these things aren't equivalent to a handful of jobs requiring NDAs is baffling imo.

Anyone moving across borders has means with or without a job they're willing to do that for, and any job requiring it must call for a person with more than just a GED; such a person has options. Without money you can't get across a big city let alone countries, so such a person doesn't need to concern themselves with whether a specific apartment is affordable or if their animals can be accommodated, they'll just shop around until they're satisfied. Not everyone has these luxuries, someone would have to end up in the **** "no free speech" apartment just so their grandma can live comfortably. That's where the line is, where people are affected. If shopping at Walmart requires you to drop your free speech, if renting an apartment requires it, or acquiring an education does, you're living in 1984. To ask why these things aren't equivalent to a handful of jobs requiring NDAs is baffling imo.

Then consider this; is it okay for a landlord to forcibly restrict your freedom of speech if the property they are renting is at a high price point? As a high-end apartment, the only people affected have the luxury to shop around until they're satisfied. You would then have to consider at what point that rent cost would justify the restriction of free speech in this hypothetical. How high does the rent have to be? It sounds to me that rich people should simply not be granted the same protections as other people.

On the other side of the point, does this mean an employee at McDonald's or some other minimum-wage job must be protected from signing NDAs? I think the line you're drawing is very odd.

^That. You can't compare a person who, for one reason or another, can only live in our one hypothetical apartment to someone for whom the NDA-requiring jobs are only a portion of their options. The real equivalent would be every job you're qualified for requiring such restrictions. What if you'd buried yourself in student loans becoming qualified? How would that not affect people's lives?

Your argument also implies that the "**** no free speech" apartment would be okay if everyone was wealthy enough to have other options.

^Neato! I minored in German and would love to visit one day. To that end, the Germans I /have/ met tend to feel disgust and shame over the events of the Holocaust (referring to it as "the darkest chapter in [their] German history" oftentimes) but still love their country. Patriotism as opposed to blind nationalism. So I was curious as to what your experience(s) had taught you.

I learned Spanish in school because I thought it would be most useful considering the influence of Latin America, and then did end up living in Costa Rica for a few months. Also a pretty simple language to learn.

Now I know there's a reason you shouldn't blame others when you do something wrong, and that reason is: you might get caught and have to apologize to a bunch of dumb peasants.

Though I've only known a small handful of Germans, the most common opinion I've personally heard about it is that while they are quite ashamed for the events of the Holocaust, it's left their government to kind of stagnate. Merkel wins every election because people are worried about seeming too nationalist again. Take that with a grain of salt though, that could just be the opinion of the few people I've met.

Merkel won't run again, so in that sense it's guaranteed to change. It's also worth remembering that the German electoral system is very different than the US - Merkel only won about a third of the vote in three of her four elections, and only reached about 42% in the one exception. She became chancellor because the CDU/CSU nonetheless finished first in Germany's splintered elections with those numbers, giving them first right to form a coalition. They did so with the (also center-right) FDP in 2005 and 2009, and with the (center-left) SPD in 2013 and the current government.

The latter coalition is (very) roughly equivalent to a Democratic/Republican coalition in the US. It meant that there wasn't a meaningful opposition (the combined parties had over 67% of the Bundestag) and that, come the 2017 election, the SPD couldn't credibly differentiate itself from the CDU/CSU since it had also been part of the government.

The original plan after the last election was to form a "Jamaica" coalition between the CDU/CSU, FDP, and Greens, but the FDP walked out. The German constitution makes it deliberately very difficult to call a second election (to avoid a repeat of the unstable Wiemar governments), and since the Let and AfD would never join a CDU/CSU coalition, repeating the previous grand coalition was the only option even though no one wanted it.

Which is all to say that it isn't so much that Merkel is an overwhelmingly popular indisputable leader, as some US outlets seem to portray her, as it is that German politics are stagnant.

When you go to a college to speak, you are not agreeing for people to protest you. They may do so if they want and probably will, hopefully within the confines of the law (probably not), but that is their choice, not a guarantee as a condition of speaking.

No, but the protesters aren't the ones that actually stop you, assuming they stay within the law. You did agree to whatever the university's policies are, and they're the ones that can actually withdraw your speaking invitation or sanction you for violating a code of conduct.

True, but it definitely says something about a college where ideas are meant to be exchanged, especially at places like Berkeley where they pride themselves on being a big part of the civil rights movement and letting people speak, and when the speakers are invited by students and have everything paid for by students, and then the college just decides, "no your ideas are too controversial to speak" it definitely goes against the spirit of free speech and the exchange of ideas.
That's not even going into what kinds of funding they get from the government and whether they should be allowed to violate free speech in the first place legally speaking while still keeping that funding.
So yeah they're allowed to disallow someone sure but if they do it just for their ideas I think most people would agree that's effed up.

That said a peaceful protest should be guaranteed as well imo as long as it doesn't turn into a full blown riot or interupt the actual invited speaker who was paid for to speak.
Plus I think it's just bad PR on yourself if you have to try and riot or blare airhornes or pull fire alarms to stop a person from speaking. It makes it seem like you're just being intolerant of people having other viewpoints and like you can't have a discussion and just want to cover your ears and shout to keep out wrongthink.